Kranji war memorial
- Thread starter liveevil
- Start date
- Status
as simon cowell may put it: simply awful
then u may ask, why?
Paula might politely say, there is no subject.
but Simon may put i more curtly and more to the point, go see the photo for yourself and tell us what picture u see in it, then u know why for yourself.
then u may ask, why?
Paula might politely say, there is no subject.
but Simon may put i more curtly and more to the point, go see the photo for yourself and tell us what picture u see in it, then u know why for yourself.
what's with the flower? are u trying to portray the flower or the cemetary? framing wise i tihnk u can do better. make sure the flower tells a story, rather than "NAH! here is the flower"..
thanks for all the comments will try to improve.
You see what you tell yourself to see. And to others, they see what they choose to see. If what you see is not what they see then what they see must not be in reality to what you see. However if you have infected the photo you have shot in the light of how you have seen it. Then it may have rubbed on to others in reality of the light in which you have seen.
Thus this cancels out the above criticism that there is no subject as a subject can only been seen visibly by you in the perception possible to you.
I think this image is perfectly fine and well executed in terms of how the colours have fallen and the placement of your foreground subject (in this case the flower). However from a personal point of view i'd just prefer a slightly shallower depth of field to enhance the flower. That in my opinion will be more then enough to change this image.
You see what you tell yourself to see. And to others, they see what they choose to see. If what you see is not what they see then what they see must not be in reality to what you see. However if you have infected the photo you have shot in the light of how you have seen it. Then it may have rubbed on to others in reality of the light in which you have seen.
I think this image is perfectly fine and well executed in terms of how the colours have fallen and the placement of your foreground subject (in this case the flower). However from a personal point of view i'd just prefer a slightly shallower depth of field to enhance the flower. That in my opinion will be more then enough to change this image.
Mind explaining it with a little more coherency?
Sometimes though, the factor of whether one wants anything to be seen at all from his photographic image must be taken into account. In such a case, the photographer either does not wish to share his photographic/aesthetic vision behind his image or has not produced what we discern a photographic image, but rather a photographic snapshot.
Thus this is not entirely the case.
What he sees is what he believes in thus making it ideal in his context and not necessarily ours. Which also renders the saying that "No image is a wrong image." How so is it possible that the photographer "does not wish to share his photographic and aesthetic vision And at the same time not produce what we discern to be a photographic image but rather a snap shot" if it is pretty clear that he has taken at least some time to have composed for this image?
snap·shot
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -shot or -shot·ted, -shot·ting.
noun 1. an informal photograph, esp. one taken quickly by a hand-held camera.
2. Hunting. a quick shot taken without deliberate aim.
3. Informal. a brief appraisal, summary, or profile.
verb (used with object), verb (used without object) 4. to photograph informally and quickly.
My context of having written my earlier statement lies within the critiques in which have been made affected by a personal judgment and point of view which can be bias by human nature.
I am not and will not disagree nor agree with your statement as it is in your own perception on how an image should be seen and only you can affect what you visually see in reality.
I have no comments on the photo, but the title can be stronger ... maybe "Kranji Tombstone Flower" or something
BTW, funny signature :bsmilie:
.
BTW, funny signature :bsmilie:
.
How do we know that?
Aren't you being overly presumptuous?
Maybe he sees nothing and believes incoherently.
For we cannot see what another sees, nor know what another believes.
What we see is what we see.
And of course you can keep what you see, know and believe to yourself, and continue forever a private discourse about these, within yourself and in your own private language.
But if you put something explicitly in a public forum for public critique then you had better be able to communicate, and in a public language - in the form of words or images - what you saw, knew and believed.
And, to be sure, we do and often make errors in such communications, for common experience informs us that others often understand and see something other than what we intended, for good or for bad.
However as long as there is an intent, I think we can get around to understanding it eventually, again for good or for bad.
But alas I see mostly photographs masquerading as pictures, empty and void of intent and content - or of intent and content most obscured and not understandable in publicly intelligible forms - and all critique are about meaningless stuff like DOF, WB, focal length, etc etc
I would concur with the second meaning of a snapshot.
In that case, if I were to accidentally press a shutter (taken without deliberate aim) without having the intention of having the shot come into existence, would that shot be rendered one that "conforms to the context of what the photographer sees" ? Would there be any 'seeing' done by the photographer in the first place?
I thus conclude that nothing is right about the saying that "No image is a wrong image."
Anything in the world that comes into existence must come with a purpose, a logic, and a reason, or at the very least, an intention. Intention is the sine qua non of the existence of everything, and if it were to be absent, there would be no context to speak of, neither would it have meaning.
As I had said earlier, I do not discount your words to be untrue, neither am I incredulous of what you were saying. I merely provided an alternate point of reference for a photographic image to be interpreted in.
In this case, or rather, in MOST cases, we as viewers cannot discern or generalize whether "if it is pretty clear that he has taken at least some time to have composed for this image?" So we have to take this into account when critiquing one's image, thus no assumptions should be made while doing so. What we should, is provide the photographer to speak up and offer him opportunities to clarify, and to let us critique at a more, shall we say, fair-headed level.
Wah...i didn't know my thread would attract so many comments. Well, i appreciate all critiques be it good or bad. At least they makes me think about what i wanted to achieve when i initially took this photo. And when i saw "the flower doesn't tells a story" indeed i think i failed to do that. so no worries, if its really awful just tell me. I will keep trying.;p
I can't get any shallower. I brought nothing more den a p&s wif me. so tats the best dof i can go...However from a personal point of view i'd just prefer a slightly shallower depth of field to enhance the flower. That in my opinion will be more then enough to change this image.
I would concur with the second meaning of a snapshot.
In that case, if I were to accidentally press a shutter (taken without deliberate aim) without having the intention of having the shot come into existence, would that shot be rendered one that "conforms to the context of what the photographer sees" ? Would there be any 'seeing' done by the photographer in the first place?
If you are in the context of having the cousious knowledge that the object within the image is in reality and existence, you would have seen it but not conform and fully materialize it. The above example provided may have many meanings. WOuld you care to narrow it down?
I thus conclude that nothing is right about the saying that "No image is a wrong image."
Then i suppose that alternative photography is nothing but bull crap?:think:
Anything in the world that comes into existence must come with a purpose, a logic, and a reason, or at the very least, an intention. Intention is the sine qua non of the existence of everything, and if it were to be absent, there would be no context to speak of, neither would it have meaning.
Which is why many people cannot see beyond the boundaries of their own capabilities.
As I had said earlier, I do not discount your words to be untrue, neither am I incredulous of what you were saying. I merely provided an alternate point of reference for a photographic image to be interpreted in.
In this case, or rather, in MOST cases, we as viewers cannot discern or generalize whether "if it is pretty clear that he has taken at least some time to have composed for this image?" So we have to take this into account when critiquing one's image, thus no assumptions should be made while doing so. What we should, is provide the photographer to speak up and offer him opportunities to clarify, and to let us critique at a more, shall we say, fair-headed level.
This is exactly why i said What he/she sees may not be what we see. All we can be is to revolve around the parellel dimension of the photographers intention and make presumptions till the reality of the intent is made known to us before we can actually see.
Hmmm i just think at the end of the day, if a person seeking for critiques wants to have proper critiques given, he/she should have a short written explaination tagged with the image in order to set the actual intent of how and why the images were taken in the manner presented.
In that case, if I were to accidentally press a shutter (taken without deliberate aim) without having the intention of having the shot come into existence, would that shot be rendered one that "conforms to the context of what the photographer sees" ? Would there be any 'seeing' done by the photographer in the first place?
If you are in the context of having the cousious knowledge that the object within the image is in reality and existence, you would have seen it but not conform and fully materialize it. The above example provided may have many meanings. WOuld you care to narrow it down?
I thus conclude that nothing is right about the saying that "No image is a wrong image."
Then i suppose that alternative photography is nothing but bull crap?:think:
Anything in the world that comes into existence must come with a purpose, a logic, and a reason, or at the very least, an intention. Intention is the sine qua non of the existence of everything, and if it were to be absent, there would be no context to speak of, neither would it have meaning.
Which is why many people cannot see beyond the boundaries of their own capabilities.
As I had said earlier, I do not discount your words to be untrue, neither am I incredulous of what you were saying. I merely provided an alternate point of reference for a photographic image to be interpreted in.
In this case, or rather, in MOST cases, we as viewers cannot discern or generalize whether "if it is pretty clear that he has taken at least some time to have composed for this image?" So we have to take this into account when critiquing one's image, thus no assumptions should be made while doing so. What we should, is provide the photographer to speak up and offer him opportunities to clarify, and to let us critique at a more, shall we say, fair-headed level.
This is exactly why i said What he/she sees may not be what we see. All we can be is to revolve around the parellel dimension of the photographers intention and make presumptions till the reality of the intent is made known to us before we can actually see.
Hmmm i just think at the end of the day, if a person seeking for critiques wants to have proper critiques given, he/she should have a short written explaination tagged with the image in order to set the actual intent of how and why the images were taken in the manner presented.
please do explain to me why even top photography competitions require a write up of why, how and where the images was shot.
Sometimes pictures just need to invoke emotions. This one works for me, especially with the lily in perspective.
"Lilies are considered the most common of flowers to be presented at funerals. The presence of Lilies at funerals symbolizes that the soul of the departed has received restored innocence after death."
I find it especially fitting and haunting since this was a war memorial after all and these men basically died fighting for their country. Quite haunting for me especially since I've done a little bit of research into this subject matter.
"Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori"
Tragic though is that they didn't die for their country.
"Lilies are considered the most common of flowers to be presented at funerals. The presence of Lilies at funerals symbolizes that the soul of the departed has received restored innocence after death."
I find it especially fitting and haunting since this was a war memorial after all and these men basically died fighting for their country. Quite haunting for me especially since I've done a little bit of research into this subject matter.
"Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori"
Tragic though is that they didn't die for their country.
There is a diff between what u put into a photo vs what u get out of a picture, just as sometimes what is intended is not what is seen; and that you should not use your dictionary when you hear someone speak, but rather listen to what he actually meant.
SO you call this good critique? Are you providing the TS with firmer grounds to further improve?
You said the competition needs it and not the photograph? Now that is a pretty funny statement, since most competitions including the World's press photos do have at least a short write up presented together with the images describing the scene in which the images are shot.
So its like saying. If i presented an abstract piece for critique with no write up on what the image is about at all. Can you give me a proper critique based on the image which i had intended to portray or can you just base it on simple personal preferances leaning towards the technicalities of how the image was shot?
- Status
Similar threads
